|
|
Post by Pakistani Boy on Jan 29, 2005 16:59:52 GMT -5
Right from day one there was no consistency as to what khilfat was. The selection process has ranged from appointment by one man to appointment by the ummah!
The four Khalifs were chosen by various methods: Abu-Bakr was elected by the Muslims of Madina. Omar was appointed by Abu-Bakr. Uthman was elected by the majority of only six persons whom Omar, before he died, had chosen as qualified for the high office: Ali, Uthman, Sa'ad, Zubayr, Talhah, and Abdul-Rahman. No one besides them was allowed to elect or to be elected. The majority of these six had the right to choose the Khalif. The hopeful ones among these six were only two: Ali and Uthman. Ali did not have the support of any of the five except Zubayr, and Uthman won the election. Ali was eventually elected after the death of Uthman by an overwhelming majority of the Muslims.
If the concept is so critical to Islam then why was their no clear guidelines as to how Allah's representive on this earth should be selected. Each of the rightly guided khilafats were appoint by a totally different process.
Could it be that this concept of Khilfat was never intended to be, that it was a political game which result in civil wars, hatred of fellow muslims, and the use of Islam to establish a kingdom. After all its was a Khalif who had the head of the Prophet's beloved grandson presented to him on a plater. Did this Khalif really have any love for the Prophet and his message?
|
|
|
|
Post by Islamic Revival on Jan 30, 2005 0:41:34 GMT -5
Pakistani Boy, are you shia by any chance?
Before saying 'Khilafat was a concept never intended to be', do take a look at the evidence from the Quranic ayat, hadith and ijma Sahaba in support of the Islamic ideological system.
You tell me..where Allah (swt) has declared Islam to be the perfect Deen, and it covers every aspect in our lives, from what we eat to how we run our businesses, and how to formulate foreign policy, how is it possible that Allah (swt) would not give us a system to run our affairs, and would simply leave that upto man?
If you think that the system made by Allah (swt) is faulty, then which system would you say is better than Islam's for running our lives?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakistani Boy on Jan 30, 2005 8:20:23 GMT -5
My dear brother in Islam, my intention is not to debate with you for the sake of debting with you, but I feel that khalifat was you intended it would be very bad for the muslim ummah.
As regards you question, I have to say that clearly by the process with which the first four khalifs were elected indicates that neither the prophet nor the prophet gave any clear guidelines as to how a khalid should be appointed.
As I have shown in the previous posts, the muslims ummah has never had a collective view of what khalfat should be and who should assume this responsibility. And clearly no clear guidelines were established Quran or the Prophet as to how one should be selected. But as you have realised that Allah has stated that there will also ways be a representitive of his on this earth. And the concept of Hidayat (guidence) will exist in all at all times. You asked me if I am a shia, and if I were then the issue would be simple for me. The concept of Imam fills this spot, and by being masoom, their guidence is devine. But from the Al-sunnah point of view this is a gap and your concept of Khifat trys to fill this gap. But as should below, Khalifat has more often been seen as a political position.
And therefore, I ask you to justify this gap, based upon what you claim to be the solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islamic Revival on Jan 30, 2005 12:38:42 GMT -5
Pakistani Boy, in order for me to understand exactly where our difference in thinking lies, let me ask you a couple of questions.
1. Do you disagree that Allah (swt) has ordered us to implement Islam in society? i.e. do you think Islam should be relegated to one's own personal life only?
or
2. Do you agree that Islam should be implemented at a societal level, yet you just cannot see how a leader would be elected/appointed?
Looking forward to your response. InshAllah this will help us to progress in our discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakistani Boy on Jan 31, 2005 16:05:53 GMT -5
Firstly, I believe that Islam in its essence is a commitment of one desires and nafs for that of Allah. This comment is made by each person in a personal capacity, so the primary focus of Islam is on the individual. Thereafter the circle expands to include the parents, family, neighbours, city, country..... But the focus is always on the individual. And on the day of judgement will be answerable for oneself and not the community.
Slow note that our great Prophet first establish his own charater in the minds and hearts of his people, then he introduced the message of Islam, and only when the circumstances were right did he establish a city estate.
But in answer to your question, I do believe that a muslims society run on muslim principle is better than a society which is established on non-muslim principles.
However, to claim that such a society can only be established by a concept khalifat which dates back to early days of Islam is wrong. Islam is a pragmatic and progressive religion, what happened 1400 years ago cannot be copied in todays circumstance. A muslim form of government should be based on giving the people the power to elect their leaders and to make those leaders answerable. Absolute power corrupts, and there should be separation of powers....
sorry I have leave now, but come back to finish my post. sorry about this break.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islamic Revival on Feb 1, 2005 1:11:58 GMT -5
Once those leaders are elected, which laws do you think they should implement?
Why do you think that Islamic law is redundant? Did Allah (swt) not give us Islam for all times for all situations until the day of judgement? Does prayer and fasting and the rest of it also become outdated?
|
|
|
|
Post by buksh26 on Feb 1, 2005 1:57:39 GMT -5
salaams, Pakistani boy; I think the topic of this thread should be "Pakistani boy; confused about the khilafah system"  On a serious note, what pakistani boy has said goes to show the lack of awareness amongst the Muslims about the issue of Khilafah. All these points is nothing but from lack of know-how of how the khilafah system works and how Islam defines the way to select the khalifa. Comments like "the ummah is divided about the issue of khilafah" comes from the inability of some people to understand that Islam didn't leave such an important matter like "choosing the khalifa" out! pakistani boy wrote: As I have shown in the previous posts, the muslims ummah has never had a collective view of what khalfat should be and who should assume this responsibility. And clearly no clear guidelines were established Quran or the Prophet as to how one should be selected. But as you have realised that Allah has stated that there will also ways be a representitive of his on this earth. And the concept of Hidayat (guidence) will exist in all at all times. You asked me if I am a shia, and if I were then the issue would be simple for me. The concept of Imam fills this spot, and by being masoom, their guidence is devine. But from the Al-sunnah point of view this is a gap and your concept of Khifat trys to fill this gap. But as should below, Khalifat has more often been seen as a political position.After Rasool(saw) no one is infallible(masoom)! This idea of infallibility of people who come after Rasool(saw) is flawed. The implementation of the Khilafah is a fard; Because the hudood of Allah(swt) depends upon its establishment. Now without the Islamic State we have to implement as much as we can. Since the "re-establishment" of the khilafah is a new issue after the destruction of the Uthmani Khilafah, an ijtihad is needed to devise a method to re-establish it. Now the Muslims can have more than one ijtihad on this matter however we need to look for the ijtihad which is supported by the strongest evidences from the Quran and the Sunnah. pakistani boy wrote: The four Khalifs were chosen by various methods: Abu-Bakr was elected by the Muslims of Madina. Omar was appointed by Abu-Bakr. Uthman was elected by the majority of only six persons whom Omar, before he died, had chosen as qualified for the high office: Ali, Uthman, Sa'ad, Zubayr, Talhah, and Abdul-Rahman. No one besides them was allowed to elect or to be elected. The majority of these six had the right to choose the Khalif. The hopeful ones among these six were only two: Ali and Uthman. Ali did not have the support of any of the five except Zubayr, and Uthman won the election. Ali was eventually elected after the death of Uthman by an overwhelming majority of the Muslims.Your above statement are incorrect; Rasool(saw) nor the sahaba karaam elected the next khalifa. I think you are confusing the issue of nomination and electing someone. Rasool(saw) never elected anyone after him but he surely nominated abu bakar(ra). Abu Bakar(ra) never elected anyone but he nominated. Omar(ra) never elected anyone but he nominated some people. Giving of the bayah(pledge) is the right of the ummah and no one can take this right away from the ummah. This whole idea of election of the khilafah is well structured and documented however there is a difference between 1. electing a khalifa when there is no khalifa and 2. electing a khalifa to replace a exiting khalifa. |
|
|
|
Post by Waqas on Mar 21, 2005 18:52:43 GMT -5
all that is right but the what about the Prophets(SAW) Grandson going against the khilifah of the time, and we know from an example whereby the people that Omar(RA) selected, he said once u have choosen anyone person as ur khalifah and then another of these comes forward as a potential khaliafah, cut of his head, so was he justified in going against Yazid because according to this he wasnt
|
|
|
|
Post by buksh26 on Mar 26, 2005 20:46:39 GMT -5
salaams,
all that is right but the what about the Prophets(SAW) Grandson going against the khilifah of the time, and we know from an example whereby the people that Omar(RA) selected, he said once u have choosen anyone person as ur khalifah and then another of these comes forward as a potential khaliafah, cut of his head, so was he justified in going against Yazid because according to this he wasnt
Could you please elaborate on the issue? ie names and details of the incident/s.
|
|
|
|
Post by buksh26 on Apr 24, 2005 21:34:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islamic Revival on Apr 27, 2005 0:13:47 GMT -5
|
|
